massive violence. more exchanges of magazines means more kids alive today. let me talk to about portia foster. she was 15 years old when she was killed over the thanksgiving holiday last year in chicago. she had five sisters. six daughters and she was the youngest. porsche was 15 and she was shot in the back of the head when she was standing with her best friend in a back yard during a sleepover. the intended victim was a gang related individual. they were targeting somebody else but she got hit.

25 shots were fired by the way, 25 shots were fired. porsche was the only victim that was hit. she was a sophomore at east tec, charter school that specialized in getting kids ready for college and architecture and construction and engineering. exactly the kind of student that we want where on the floor of the united states senate and the house of representatives clamoring for more girls to go into stem technology science technology and math. porsche was going to a charter school that was going to get her ready to go into careers of architecture and construction and engineering. imagine what she could have done if she lived beyond the age of 15. she played volleyball and she played basketball and sung in the church choir. she loved art.

her classmates actually honored her death by holding an art sale and her memory and because funerals are expensive especially in inner city chicago they used the proceeds from the art sale to pay for portia's funeral. let me tell you that is no small expense. you don't think about that but one of the biggest issues in hartford connecticut today, a city that has had relatively low gun violence this year but on an average year could have a couple dozen gun deaths is how do you pay for the funerals? how do you, but the money as a community to pay for a funeral every other week and in a small little city like hartford? portia's france decided to help pay for her funeral. her family and friends remember her as happy, friendly and a great student, always busy some unquote kook you couldn't be quiet around.

her five sisters had planned to give their youngest sister a guitar for christmas. she was on november 26, 2012 among before she was going to get that guitar. madam president i know there are other people here who wish to. >> so i will yield the floor at this point that i will be back today and tomorrow to talk about more victims. i just think we need to tell their stories. i just think that people need to get to know who these people are of them if things don't change and we have the power this week and next week to do something about it. not to eliminate future victims. you're never ever going to change the fact that people are going to pick up a gum -- gun

and violate the law, are going to shoot to kill. we are never going to stop that but we can do something to reduce these numbers so that next year at this time or two years from this time you can't come down to the floor with a binder full of victims just from the past three months. madam president i will be back later today and tomorrow to continue this but at this point i will yield the floor. >> madam president. >> the senator from oklahoma. >> madam president asking as if i've be recognized as if in morning business for five minutes. >> without objection. >> first of all madam president let me say that i certainly sympathize with the tragedy that took place and those who lost family members. as having 20 kids and grandkids myself i probably am in a better

position to sympathize with that than many others are. i have to say that i think somewhat of a disservice is being done to some of these families. it's almost like saying we are looking at legislation that would have prevented that from happening and that's not the case. we are looking at legislation that would preclude something like this happening again. and i listened to my colleagues on the right side and on the republican side in the left the democratic side and they'll have good ideas and they all are sincere in wanting to do something. maybe i'm looking at it too simplistically because i look at the 2nd amendment. i look at what historically has been our privileges and exercising our right to keep and bear arms since the very beginning and i see and i have lived through on the state and

federal level all kinds of efforts of people to think we can do something about gun violence and let's do it by background checks and let's check everybody out there. and let's approach the gun shows let's talk about all these things that could be done. we could restrict the number of magazines and all these things. but it's all predicated on one assumption which i can't buy. that assumption is that somehow we think that the criminal element would single out this one loss to comply with. let's look at the facts. when you look at what they are trying to do, anything that we are going to be voting on in the next two or three weeks is going to in some way restrict the number of firearms and i think we all agree with that. now who's firearms with a

restrict? they would restrict the firearms of law-abiding citizens and that means the ratio between guns owned by criminal elements versus the law-abiding citizens is going to change. and when they talk about the background checks that can't imagine anyone being so naïve as to not know that if you are going to get, if a criminal element is going to get a gun they are going to get again. they would like to have these restrictions and like to have backgrounbackground checks that eliminate the number of guns in circulation and so the criminal element is the only one who is not affected. i was asked that question not long ago about, it was actually down at the border, the mexican border and asked the question how can you be so wrong or why is america so wrong and he talked about the poll that was taken where the results were 90-

3 and the question was asked do believe we ought to have stronger back round chex? i said fine, if you were to ask that same question 90% of the people by the way answered yes that we need stronger back round chex. if you ask that question do you believe that we should have stronger background checks on the law-abiding citizens and not the criminal element i can assure you it would be 99-0 the other way. that's the one thing that people overlook. you can pass all the laws that you want and the criminal element will sit back and smile. it's naïve not to believe that regardless of background checks the criminal element find someone who can get a gun and make 100 bucks and they have a gun. that's the ratio that changes and not in a healthy way. in a way i think it's a disservice to an awful lot of people who have had tragedies in

their lives to believe we are doing something that is really going to change that when in fact i don't believe it is. >> coming up on c-span tonight senators manchin into me discuss the bipartisan agreement on gun background checks. senator's manchin and toomey announced their expanded that run check proposal. what do we know about it? >> guest: well it certainly created a lot of buzz in the senate which is interesting to watch. it comes from a proposal that was originally drafted by senator schumer from new york because it's not begin averse background checked. essentially what it is it mandates that round checks for

gun purchasers at gun shows and over the internet but does not mandate a background check if i'm going to sell a gun to you just overall. >> host: what motivated senator's manchin and toomey a democrat and a republican to work together on this compromise >> guest: i don't have a number but you can look at the polling. essentially 90% of the public i think is the latest number that supports universal back round checks. it's something that senator toomey has a nay rating from the nra but it's the right thing to do. it has been the top part of the gun control movement agenda for years now and it's considered the one thing that could pass. certainly it goes a long ways from answering fears that some republicans had put forth about the kind of neighbor to neighbor family sales that they think

should be part of the big federal background check system. >> host: does that mean you will get more support from their senatorial colleaguecolleague s and specifically for who? >> guest: the only person that found it positive enough that i can report she might put forward was susan collins from maine and i asked her about it this morning. they're a size that standard i have to repeat the language and i don't really know so there are a number of senators who feel even whether they were support the motion to proceed which happens tomorrow. that doesn't necessarily mean it will fail but there waiting to see which way the wind blows probably until the last minute. >> host: you mentioned a rating from the national rifle national rifle association and how did they respond to the manchin toomey proposal? >> guest: i haven't seen anything on that which might mean that they are just being under the radar about it. they put out some stuff about

their own agenda on the school safety last week and they have been pretty quiet at least to the press about that kind of stuff since then. the gun control advocacy group the brady campaign and the mayors against illegal guns have been out front and center. a lot of them have put out very favorable responses to this toomey manchin compromise. i think everyone is a little concerned about how far it's going to go but quite frankly it's so much better than what they would have gotten in the past. >> host: in their news conference senator manchin indicated that their amendment would be considered first. what other amendments are likely to be considered in the debate on the bill? >> guest: well so you know that there will be an amendment on banning assault weapons which we expect to fail. we don't expect it to get a majority vote but we note the separate amendment on banning high-capacity magazine clips,

the bullets that will out 30 or 40 rounds in a few seconds, that is not supposed to pass although it made pick up a few republicans who would not vote for an all-out assault weapons ban and on the republican side they are looking at their own alternative package so it it would include a number of factors. it would include a sponsor by senator lindsey graham from south carolina to kind of updates the mental health component of the national database where you are supposed to be checking its people for gun purchases. it would include interest and laws on gun trafficking which is the illegal sale of guns purchased illegally. it would improve the laws on privacy regulations for health care for some states that don't want to report to the national database because they think it violates privacy concerns and the school safety component.

this is all part of a republican alternative to senator reid package. clearly they are thinking about the step and there may be individual amendments on each of those as well. >> host: senators cruz and leanne senator paul were said to have that news conference twice today and they were canceled. can you tell us what's going on there? >> guest: i tried to contact their offices and they said there were scheduling conflicts but plan to go forward with 11 or 12 senators and blocking the bill. i don't know whether they will but they are certainly set to beat doing that. i don't know what has happened with the press conference but they're having a little trouble getting there. >> host: you wrote about the political dynamic is definitely evolving in describing the gun control debate. what does that mean as the bill comes to the floor. what would that look like?

>> guest: i just think it's actually the fact that i can keep up with it. the senators are really grappling with tough issues on gun control. i've never seen it before in the 15 years i've been covering congress. i think there was a lot in 1994 but since then i haven't seen the kind of tough grappling about okay if we need to check people's backgrounds how can we ensure their privacy? how can we make sure that we still keep the second amendment rights without having a huge list of gun purchasers on the landscapelandscaped? how can we stop -- go in there is even conversation going on outside of the senate about what do we do about our drug policy which is fueling a lot of the debate and that has been going on as well. i think the gun control advocates, the people who are trying to limit any kind of gun purchases, this is the kind of

thing they have wanted to talk about for years and of members of not been willing to and all of a sudden -- it's awesome to watch. >> host: fawn johnson with "national journal" and you can read her report in "national journal".com. thanks for being with us. >> guest: a pleasure. >> senators joe manchin of west virginia and pat toomey announced a bipartisan bill bikes banding background checks. it would expand checks for all commercial sales such as gun shows and over the internet. this is about 20 minutes. >> good morning. i'm going to be covering up some some -- here. i would like to say good morning to all of you and i'm proud to be here with my good friend pat toomey from my sister state pennsylvania.

we are side-by-side side-by-side and we come from states that have deep-rooted cultures as you know and we have been very strong and that. i also want to give special thanks to two people who are here today who have been valuable to this process and have worked from the beginning trying to find common ground and that is senator chuck schumer my good friend and my dear friend mark kirk. mark has been with me from the beginning and has never left and chuck and his staff and all that have worked so hard i think everybody and the staff does a yeoman's job. i also want to thank tom coburn. tom has been invaluable and the culture that we come from has had great input all the way through this process. i want to make clear from the start and it's not the end of our work. we still have a lot to do. we have an agreement, pat and i have an agreement with senator

kirk and senator schumer. we have an agreement on an amendment to prevent criminals and the mentally ill and insane from getting firearms and harming people. that's extremely important for all of us. also we agree that we need a commission on mass violence and a commission made up of people with expertise. people have expertise in guns and expertise in mental illness and people who have expertise in school safety and people who have expertise in video violence. we have a cultural violence and a whole generation that has been desensitized. if you go around and talk to the young people today, we have to find out how we can change in reverse that. we also need to protect legal gunowners, legal gunowners like myself and pat who basically cherish the 2nd amendment rights that we have and we have done that also for today is the start of a healthy debate that doesn't end with the senate of the house

hopefully passing these commonsense measures and the president signing into law. back where i come from we have commonsense and now we have gun cents and that is what we are talking about. the events at newtown changes all and it changed our country, our communities and our towns and it changed our hearts and minds. this amendment will not ease the pain of the families who have lost their children on that horrible day that nobody here and i mean not one of us in this great capital of hours with a good conscious can sit by and not try to prevent a day like that from happening again and i think that is what we what we ae doing. americans on both sides of the debate can and must find common ground and that is what pattern i've been working on and what we have been able to do in today's agreement is the first step in the common ground to keep guns out of dangerous hands and keep our children safe. this is a bipartisan movement.

it's a bipartisabipartisa n amendment and we all know that a bipartisan solution is a lasting solution but nobody here in good conscience could sit by and not try to prevent a date that has happened in newtown from happening again. i can't say enough about my friend pat toomey and i just appreciate him so much for working -- working and staff. with that i would like to introduce my good friend pat toomey. >> thank you very much senator manchin. i too want to commend senator manchin with a great time he is put in on this and our staff to work very hard as well and i appreciate working with you and will continue to work together i hope on many things. i also want to mention the terrific work that senator kirk has him on this. he has really been an invaluable asset and a very important voice in this discussion and i appreciate that. let me say pennsylvania has had

long bipartisan tradition of supporting gun rights and i have been proud to be part of that and i continue to be. i'm a gun owner and the rights of the second amendment are important to me personally as i know they are to so many people across pennsylvania. my record shows this. i've got to tell you candidly i don't consider criminal background checks to be gun control. i think it's just common sense. if you pass a criminal background check did you get to buy a gun no problem. it's the people who fail, criminal or mental health background check that we don't want to want to have a again. in my time in public life i have not taken a high-profile role on this issue. i spend most of my time and energy focusing on policies that will help generate economic growth and job creation and put us on a sustainable fiscal path. that has been my focus and will

continue to be my focus so let me explained to you why i'm standing here today with senator manchin. i am here because over the last few months several things became apparent. first is the gun legislation appears destined to reach the senate floor. it's not something that i sought that is something that i think is inevitable. the second thing is that became apparent that there are a number of gun control proposals that i think actually would infringe on the second amendment rights and i will tell you categorically that nothing in our amendment prevents the ownership of guns by any lawful person and i wouldn't support it if it did. that would also became apparent to me in the course of the debate was the danger that we might end up accomplishing nothing and not making progress where we could. so that is when i started talking to senator manchin and senator kirk and others to see if we might be able to find a place where there is common ground and i think we have found it.

the common ground rests on the proposition and that is that criminals and the dangerously mentally ill should not have guns. i don't know anyone who disagrees with that premise from either political party or whatever folks views might need on broader gun rights issues. so we start with the notion that dangerously mentally ill people shouldn't have guns the question is how can we accomplish that? background checks are not a cure-all by any means but they can be helpful. in the tenure. for my t. 99 to 2009, 1.8 million gun sales were blocked by the current background check system because people were not qualified to own a gun. i supported background checks in the past and i support them now. they are to exist of course for the guns from licensed dealers. pennsylvanian fact they --

purchases. if it passes the past is what our measure will do is expand background checks for purchases of firearms at gun shows and over the internet. it would not require -- and the fact is the national hand the law we have been pennsylvania's experience have done nothing to restrict the lawful ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens. the warnings we hear sometimes about background checks leading to an erosion of our second amendment rights simply has not happened. and we will make sure that it doesn't. i also should point out his senator manchin did that this amendment is a genuine compromise in addition to expanding back round checks it includes a number of measures that help to secure the second amendment rights of gun owners that gun owners have long sought the bottom line for me is this. if expanding background checks to include gun shows and internet sales can reduce the

likelihood of criminals and mentally ill people getting guns and we can do it in a fashion that does not infringe on the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens then we should do it and in this amendment i think we do. thanks very much. >> we will take some questions. how do you want to direct them? >> senator with the nra what concessions have you had. [inaudible] >> i can't speak for the nra but i have been in constant dialogue and i'm sure pat has too and taking all sites into consideration. when you have senator schumer coming to the table wanting to see something to move in the right direction and also the direction he may come from but able to sit down with us from the beginning of pat and mark

kirk sit down from the beginning and work through the nra sending their people on all sides of the issue, what we are trying to do is basically say that if you go to a gun store today you are subjected to a background check. basically a lot of the states haven't done the work they should have done. we are going to make sure they do. there are penalties and most of all of the gun to a gun show you'll be treated the same as if he went to a store. you'll be subjected to a background check and if you go on line you will be subject to the same as you are if you buy a gun on line in another state so those are all the things we are doing and yes we have spoken to the nra and i can tell you you what their position is that we have done the things that patches that we did. we strengthened basically the rights of law-abiding gun owners like myself and pat to be able to exercise our second amendment rights but we have also i think done a tremendous favor to the

citizens of our great country on background checks, expanding them to keep guns from people that shouldn't have them. people who have been criminally adjudicated and mentally adjudicated. >> senator you are risking your a rating with an ra. >> what matters to me is doing the right thing and i think this is the right thing and i think most pennsylvanians will agree that make in a more difficult for criminals and mentally ill people to obtain guns is the right thing to do and securing the rights of law-abiding citizens is also the right thing to do so that is what is most important to me. >> your a rating will not change? >> let's just say -- >> do you think you will get more republicans to agree? [inaudible] >> i've had conversations with several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle but i can't

speak for them yet. i think it's too soon to know how people are going to vote on this. >> we have a confirmation with senator reid -- >> we have been promised and confirmed that our amendment will be the first amendment. >> does this include the amendment to the bill and you will vote for this bill on final passage? >> i cannot support it without the amendment that pat and i have worked on. >> i don't predict how i'm going to vote on a measure that isn't defined yet and since this might well and i hope it will be an open and in the process i don't know which amendment will succeed or fail so i will make my final judgment when i see the final product. >> can you talk about their reaction has been for your plan from your fellow republicans? >> well it is a range.

there are some people that are very interested in learning more and they are hopefully considering whether they might have embraced this approach and others are not interested. it kind of runs the gambit. >> for people who don't know each other -- >> let me make it very clear. what we have done is if you go to a gun show you have to do all background checks that will have to be reported. a federal firearms license the same as you do if you go to a gun store. if you go on line it's the same. other than that now. personal transfers are not touched whatsoever. we have done these two. >> can i follow up on that? there were items in their -- [inaudible] >> the way i would characterize

it as securing gun rights and i think we have distributed a list. i will give you a couple of examples. it happens that a law-abiding citizen who has every legal right to own a weapon is transporting it from one state to another. maybe his going hunting or maybe he is bringing it to his son or daughter. he is transporting it in the proper fashion but you have to transit to a state that might require a license. he doesn't have a license in that state and sometimes that person maybe has to stop for gas or stay overnight in a hotel. that person shouldn't be subject to criminal prosecution when he is doing something that is completely lawful and the second example i i will give you and there are others, current law prevents active duty military personnel from buying a gun in their own state. they are only permitted to buy a gun in a state in which they are stationed. what we would do as we would change that and allow an active-duty military to buy guns

in their home state so those are just two examples. >> in the past you have been described national concealed carry reciprocity and you touched on a little bit senator toomey. is the of the first step. [inaudible] >> i supported and i hope we get there. >> it gives us much better control and treats people fairly. if pat and i and you and i are legal law-abiding gun owners and enjoy hunting we can't assume people because we enjoy the 2nd amendment rights if we have that there something wrong. we want to make sure we do in a safe manner and we are treated fairly. without this goal is to make sure that the people that shouldn't have will not have access to the guns.

>> there would be a process where people carry guns as they travel. they would not be caught in that trap? see if they have a much extensive background check to get a permit to carry then they will be treated as law-abiding citizens and not as criminals because they happen to be in a state that does not accept that. >> what you think do you think the prospects are for this amendment on the senate floor and should the senate passed something but are the prospects of that? >> my answer is i don't know. i am looking forward to the debate and i'm hopeful but i think it's a fluid situation and it's hard to predict. >> let me just say this. i have spoken this morning with all of my friends in the gun state of west virginia and the coast of west virginia, people who appreciate and enjoy the rights that they have and i

explained what the bill does. i think i have support from who are the most critical gun advocates of anybody in the country. they understand it's common sense. we are not infringing on their rights as individual citizens. basically is the same as if you went to a gun show. if you go on line at should be the same as if you cross-state lines or fewer in the state. this makes sense of also having a -- talk to your children who are watching videogames today. talk to the people at newtown. if we had -- these are things we never took into consideration before. why aren't we treating mental on the desk?

[inaudible] >> i have had several conversations with some of our house colleagues and i know there are a substantial number of house republicans that are supportive of this general approach. first they want to look at the specifics of the legislation but that if i republicans in the house that support this. thank you all very much. >> thank you so much. next connecticut senator chris murphy speaks about the legislation followed by senator mike lee from utah on his

opposition. >> thank you mr. president. mr. president it goes without saying that we all do our jobs and the united states senate for a reason. we decided to run for this high office because of issues we deeply care about whether it be more affordable health care or better housing or lower taxes and in a job like this you are driven to find the issues that move you. and then sometimes there are issues that find you. when i was elected to the united states senate last november i never imagined that my main speech would be about guns or about gun violence. just like i could have never imagined that i would be standing here in the wake of 20 little kids having died at sandy hook or six adults who protected them. but sometimes issues find you

and so here i am. i'm so pleased to have the majority leader and the majority whip and so many of my colleagues on the floor with me here today. i want to start though with the unpleasant part. i think it's important for all of my colleagues to understand why we are having this debate this weekend next week about gun violence and why in the first time in decades we were able to break the logjam. it's easy to avert your eyes and what happened in newtown. it's easy to just close your ears and pretend it didn't happen. but we can't ignore the reality because it's here and on the disturbingly regular basis it's here in columbine, in tucson, and over and at sandy hook and the next is just waiting to be added to the list if we do

nothing. so here's what happens. sometime in the early morning hours of december 14 a very disturbed reclusive young man named adam lanza went into his mother's room and shot her dead in her sleep. a few minutes later, 80 hours later he got in her car and drove to sandy hook elementary school. by 9:35 he shot his way through locked doors within ar-15 semiautomatic rifle owned by his mother and he began a ten-minute rampage that left 20 children all six and 7-year-olds and six adults who cared for them dead. in 10 minutes adam lanza got off 154 rounds from a gun that could shoot up to six lets a second. that high-powered gun assured that every single child that adam lanza shot died.

and he shot most kids multiple times. adam posner was shot 11 times alone. the state medical examiner said he had never ever seen anything like this. six kids were courageously hidden in a classroom closet by their teacher victoria soto who shielded her kids from the bullets and died that day. five of the kids ran out of the room and lance had trouble reloading. five kids alive today because the shooter had to stop and switch ammunition magazines. whether it's because he had trouble loading again or because the police were coming in the building at 9:45 lanza turned one of the weapons on themselves and the massacre ended but not before 26 people were dead. that's the reality. the worst of the reality is this. we either do something right now

or it's going to happen again. really mr. president tapping every day. this country has gotten so callously used to gun violence that it's just rain drops. it's just background and that reality the level of which we are losing 30 americans a day to gun violence in which a chart that shows you how many died december 14 is almost unreadable because it's a cap of thousands. that reality is just as unacceptable as what happened at sandy hook that day so the question is are we going to do anything about it or are we just going to sit on our hands and accept the status quo with respect to everyday can violence and the increased incidences of mass shootings? if we are serious about doing our jobs and we can't. outside the beltway this is not a debate. this is a discussion. most americans think we should

have universal background checks two-thirds of americans think we should restrict high-capacity ammunition clips. 76% of americans believe we should crack down on people who buy guns illegally and go out and sell them in the community illegally. the american public knows that we have to do something here so why have we been stuck for so long? first, it's because the congressman are listening to the wrong people. we should listen to gun owners because they comprised of a lower percentage of americans than they did 30 years ago. they are really important constituents. the problem is the nra does not speak for gunowners like it used to. and yet we listened to the organization more than we should 10 years ago the nra argued for universal background checks in the wake of columbine. today they are opposed to background checks even though 74% of nra members support universal background checks.

i don't know the exact reason for that but maybe it's because increasing the nra has been financed not by its members by commonsense gun owners but the gun industry tens of millions of dollars coming into the nra from the gun industry a program that allows the nra to take a couple of bucks off of every gun that is sold in many gun stores across the country. we are not listening to gunowners. if we were this would not be a debate in this chamber. secondly and maybe most importantly, we have really watched a conversation in this place about rights. rights are at the core of this debate. you know i hear when i'm back home in connecticut a lot of people talking about the right to bear arms as an inalienable right or a god-given right. of course the constitution makes no such claim. the idea of an inalienable right

to send the declaratideclarati on of independence in a phrase we know very well. we hold these terms to to be self-evident all mains are created equally endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights amongst these the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. but liberty is in isn't just about having any gun you want. anytime you want it. liberty has to also be about the right to be free from indiscriminate violence. what kind of liberty to those kids have in that classroom in newtown being trapped by an assault weapon yielding murder and more importantly what kind of liberty desiccated up the street from here in washington d.c. have every time he walks to the corner store or walks home from school? that's not the kind of life liberty and pursuit of happiness that our founding fathers talked about. even if you do except the part of liberty is owning and using a gun then we have to ask

ourselves these questions. to what degree are our rights infringed upon? there are a handful of weapons that are too dangerous and to what extent our freedoms trampled upon by just saying you will need to reload your semi automatic weapon after every 10 bullets than rather after every 30 bullets? how gravely do we risk moderately restraining the size of a purchasable clip? if liberty is her chief concern in preserving and protecting the lives of innocent little kids has gone away against marginally constrained weapons. if we can't agree on that what can we agree on and if we accept this balance the prescriptions are simple. guns should be available but they should be available to people of sound line with no criminal record. we have have believed that for a long time since the brady bill has passed. we have had 2 million people who are stopped from buying guns

because they were legally prohibited to do so. the problem is that 40% of weapons sold in the country don't go through background checks. i hope we will have good news by the end of the day on this front but that's an easily acceptable premise. criminal should not own guns. a smaller number of guns are just too dangerous for retail sales. we have always drawn the line that some weapons are reserved for military and others can be in the hands of private citizens. we know assault weapons kill and we know what happens when we banned them the last time. gun homicides dropped by 37%. nonlethal gun crimes dropped by an equal percentage. third, some ammunition to easily enables mass slaughter. what legitimate reason is there for somebody to be able to walk into a movie theater or a

religious institution or a school with 100 round drum of ammunition? why do we need that? 100 rounds. that doesn't sound too radical, does that? what does the gun lobby tell us about these ideas? what did they say is wrong with this approach that is grounded in data supported by people all across the country? specifically we hear two things over and over again. the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with the gun and second that guns don't really kill people but people kill people. to the first argument nancy lanza own guns for a variety of reasons but one of the reasons was she was divorced and she lived alone and wanted a gun to protect herself. she was alone a lot of the time. guns that nancy lanza used were used to fire upon intruders in her home killed her and 26 other

boys in girl's and parents. that is not just an anecdote but a statistical trend. if you have a gun in your house is four times more likely to be used in an accident than against an intruder. if you own a gun it will be much more likely is to kill you than someone trying to break into your home. and the second argument as author dennis hanigan once put at guns don't kill people. they enable people to kill people. guns are important for% of facilities -- felonies. guns enable violence that are vastly more violent. how do we know this? we know it by what happened in sandy hook that day but more of poignantly we know it by what happened that very same day on the entire other side of the world. on that same day the 20 kids died in newtown, in china a

madman walked into a school and attacked 23 schoolchildren with a deadly weapon, the same day. 20 kids in newtown and 23 kids in china. in newtown all 20 kids who were attacked died. in china all 23 kids who were attacked lived. why? because the assailant had a knife, not a gun that could spray six bullets a second. so forgive me if i dismiss those like the president of the nra who chooses to ignore the laws we are debating this week and next week where he said that all we are talking about here is feel-good legislation. he is right about one thing. it would feel really good if daniel barden got on the bus

this morning to go to school. daniel was an intensely passionate little kid. he would always sit next to the kids in school who sat alone. he never left the room without turning the lights off. when his family would go to the grocery store they would leave the store and get halfway across the parking lot and they would turn turn around and anna wasn't there because he was still holding the door open for people who needed a way out. he loved smaller spear it he would feel really good if marquez green could sing the songs she left. she sang and performed everywhere she went. she came from a really musical family. her mom said she didn't walk anywhere her mode of transportation was dancing. she loved to sing and dance in church. she loved it when her parents read to her from the bible.

it would feel really good if ben wheeler got to enjoy the beautiful spring day out site today. he was a piano virtuoso. he had a recital when he was six years old but what he really loved was playing outside with his older brother david. he loved to play soccer. the morning that he was killed, he told his mom as they were leaving for school that he wanted to be at paleontologist when he grew up. he said that is what nate is going to be. i want to do everything that nate does. so that is our task. to be back all the naysayers who say we can't do this and change the way things are. i believe we can. i believe that we are good enough to drown out the voices of the status quo with the lobbyist in the political consultants. i think in the next couple of weeks we are good enough to change the way things are. finally i want to tell you one

last story to explain why i know that we are good enough. when we see people in need, when we see children stripped of their dignity we are too compassionate a people to close our their eyes. i know sometimes we wonder what we really are inside. are we truly good or is this learned behavior? and it may sound strange but after december 14, i just know the former to be through. because after and during the shooting just to swallow up those 10 minutes of evil millions of kindness rained down on newtown from the teachers who protected those kids to the firefighters who didn't leave that firehouse for days afterward and the millions of gifts and phonecalls that came in from the rest of the world. and because of and marie murphy.

and marie was a special education teacher charged with the care of dylan hockley, this little lloyd a wonderful gentle 6-year-old lloyd who was living with autism. and marie loved dylan and dylan loved and marie back. there was a picture on his refrigerator of and marie and almost every day he pointed to ann marie with pride to his parents. nicole his mom is here this week at dylan's funeral she said when she realized dylan wasn't going to show up at the firehouse fire house that day with all the other kids who were returning from the school she hoped she would need -- see him and she knew she wouldn't. she knew that ann marie would not leave dylan dylan site if you were in danger.

and she didn't. when the bullets started flying, she brought dylan into her arms and she held him tight inside the classroom and that is just how the two of them were found. on monday that cole flew down here to washington with myself and president obama to try to make the case that rings need to change for dylan, and co-marie and the thousands of other people who have been killed by guns. and as nicole and the other parents walked up the steps of air force one, one mom raised a piece of paper above her head with a note she had scribbled on that day. the cameras caught the moment. the note just said simply, love wins. i believe today more than i ever have before that if we are truly doing our job here in this

chamber, then love has to win every single time. mr. president i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> the senator from connecticut. >> mr. president thank you and i want to congratulate and thank my colleague from connecticut, senator murphy, on his profoundly eloquent and powerful statement to our colleagues and join him in calling attention to the horrific tragedy that has brought us to this point in the debate on gun violence. his very eloquent and powerful summary of our loss i think is a way to begin a potential turning

point after newtown has given us a call to action. newtown is a tipping point in this debate and my colleague from connecticut and i have spent literally days and weeks with that community and have seen the courage and strength that they have brought to this town and they have been meeting with our colleagues and they are indeed here today. benjamin andrew cuyler who was age six and his father david is here today and grace marquez green, age six, her mother and her father jimmy are here today. dylan hockley age six, his mother nicole is here. daniel barden 87, his mother jackie and his father mark are here.

jesse louis lewis age six, his father neal heslin is here. mary sherlach one of the six educators, one of the six heroic educators killed at sandy hook, her husband build is here today. we can draw inspiration not only from the memories of those children and great educators who were killed but from their strength and resilience and resolve in coming to the halls of this building, meeting with our colleagues and indeed at this very moment they are with one of our colleagues looking in the eyes and saying to him how can you not approve a bill that stops it illegal trafficking and strengthened school safety, imposes a requirement for criminal background checks? how can you not stop assault

weapons and high-capacity magazines that were integral to that killing in newtown? how can you not do something about gun violence that has caused more than 3000 deaths since then? how can you not allow a vote to? how can you defy the american people of a vote on a measure that is so essential to their safety, their well-being, the futures of their children and their communities? as the president of the united states has said so eloquently and his leadership is a been so important to this caused the victims of newtown tucson aurora and virginia tech deserve a vote. the likelihood of a vote has been increased by the leadership of my colleagues senator schume,

senator toomey who have worked hard to bring us together to a very promising and profoundly constructive turning point in this process. and i want to thank also our leader senator harry reid for his determination and resolve. on the morning of december 14, parents throughout connecticut and newtown and sandy hook brought their children to school thinking of the rest of their day and the rest of their day when they would have play dates, snacks, brakes, holiday parties, christmas and hanukkah treats, present wrapping, paper angels, gingerbread, songs. those were the memories and the

future that they brought with them. just hours later, i was at sandy hook as 20 families of those children emerged from a firehouse and i will never forget the cries of pain and grief that i saw on that day. i went there as a public official because i felt a responsibility to be there. but what what i saw was through the eyes of a parent as all america did on that day, and i saw the families also of the six heroic educators perished trying to save their children. those sights and sounds changed america. we are different today than we were before sandy hook. this problem is with us, the problem of gun violence is the same problem that has existed

for decades but we are different because we know we can and must do something about it. there was evil in that day at sandy hook but there was also great goodness. the goodness of the first responders who stopped the shooting through their bravery when they appeared at the school the shooter turned the gun on himself. they saved lives. the courage and bravery of the clergy. father bob, monsignor bob for that evening conducted a vigil that we attended when many results to light candles instead of approaching the darkness. the greatness of leadership demonstrated by many public officials beginning with the first elected woman of newtown and the legislators who passed in connecticut a measure that will provide a model for the country.

.. and we will demonstrate the kind of leadership the majority need at this point. they want common sense measures to stop the violence. a lot to have action of this

body. we want to keep pace with them, but also the victors. the connecticut effect is not going away. this resolve is not dissipating. out of that tragedy, the unspeakable law, the unimaginable horror of that day and the days to come, we resolve this country will be better and safer. and so, as we begin this to be, as colleagues of ours at this moment now a very promised compromise as a latest, provide us with a path towards bipartisan action and it should. it is not a republican or democrat about law enforcement

or about law enforcement saving people's lives. we should resolve to go forward as one country. i've been working on this issue for many years. i hope to authorize the poor connecticut's first assault weapons ban in the early 1990s. i went to court to defend constitutionally and in its states of a court to uphold law. i work with on first colleagues for three decades. and i know that the support these measures. our state and local police, prosecutors around the country supported the anon illegal trafficking. they support a national background check. they support school safety and they support hands-on military

style weapons that are simply designed to kill and maim innocent people and they support a ban on high-capacity magazines because they know those are the weapons of war. they enable criminals to outgun them. they put their lives at risk. so i listened to my colleagues in line for us in his tummy we need do some about gun violence. i listened to the people of newtown to say, can't the amount that god? a respect the rights of gun honors. the second amendment rights of the land and none of these bozos would take this out of the hands of responsible and lawful gun owners. but there are some people who should not have been. it is some kind that should not be a news and there are some

weapons of water, high-capacity magazines that should not be sold in this country. in more than half of that killing, high-capacity magazines enabled the shooting that occurred so rapidly and so legally. he newtown, the changing of the magazine issued shooter enable children to escape. in tucson, the killing 9-year-old christina taylor the 13th poet would not have happened if the magazine had been limited to 10 rounds because the shooter was tackled as they try to change magazines. the high-capacity magazine enabled adam landsat to fire 154 bullet in five minutes.

said these kinds of common sense measures may not prevent all of these tragedies. they may not enable us to stop all of the 3000 killing that have occurred since newtown. we can't look back and say for certainty that newtown wouldn't have occurred these measures had been in place, but the likelihood would have been reduced. some relatives children might be alive today. some of those heroic educators could be in their classrooms now and the challenge here is to save lives, to do something to stop the carnage in killing on our streets, in our neighborhoods, in communities like newtown, a quintessential new england town. if it can happen in newtown, it

can happen anywhere in america. as we go forward in this debate, i hope we will extend to those brave in resilient and resolved families are here today. listen to them when they say to us that we must keep faith, listen to nepal hockley and what she said when the president of the united states visited can indicate just a couple days ago. she said that now there is no going back for me. there is no way. if you want to protect your children, if you want to avoid this law, you will not turn away. i ask my colleagues, but its face this reality. let us not turn away.

let us resolve to go forward and keep a look at children educators who by their example provided as within enormous and his or her opportunity to america safer and better. a nation that we love, the nation that we all believe is the greatest in his. the world will be greater still after we move forward to make it safer and better. madam thank you, not a president. i yield themr floor.that them >> senator from utah.ficer: >> i ask unanimous the quorum call be -- along with a number that colleagues, including theo minority leader, i declared myao

attention on any new restrictions that are primarilyn to limit the freedoms of law-abiding citizens rather than reduce crime iny, america. unfortunately, the current gun. more than two weeks ago, we informed the majority leader that we will exercise our procedural right to require a 60-vote threshold in order to bring this legislation to the floor. we've taken this step under our senate rules and procedure for three principal reasons. first, the senate serves an important function in our republic by encouraging deliberation and making it more difficult for a temporary majority to impose its will unilaterally. unlike the house of representatives, the senate's rules and procedures allow for meaningful debate and help ensure that a bare majority of senators cannot impose controversial legislation on the american people without robust

debate, discussion, and broad-based and bipartisan consensus. contrary to the statements made by the president and by spf my friends a-- and by some of my friends across the aisle and even a few from within my own caucus, we have no intention of preventing debate or votes. quite the opposite. by objecting to the motion to proceed, we guarantee that the senate and the american people would have at least three additional days to assess and evaluate exactly how this particular bill might affect the rights of law-abiding citizens and whether or not it might have any significant impact on violent crime. already we've seen consensus against passing any new gun legislation, at least not without broad bipartisan suppo support. during the recent budget debate, i offered an amendment to establish a two-thirds vote requirement for the passage of any new gun legislation. six democratic senators voted

with a nearly united republican caucus to support my amendment by a vote of 50-49. that vote demonstrated that a bare majority of senators, including at least six democrats, believe that new gun legislation should have broad bipartisan support in the senate before it's passed and before it has the opportunity to become law. a 60-vote threshold will help ensure that new gun laws aren't forced through the senate with the narrow support of just one party. second, this debate is about a lot more than just magazine clips and pistol grips. it's about the purpose of the second amendment and why our constitutionally protected right to self-defense is an essential part of self-government. at its core, the second amendment helps ensure that individuals and local communities can serve as the first line of defense against threats to our persons and our property.

any limitation on this fundamental right of self-defense makes us more dependent on our government for our own protection. government can't be everywhere at all times, so the practical effect of limiting our individual rights is to make us less safe. this is deeply troubling to many americans. any legislation that would restrict our basic right to self-defense deserves serious and open debate. further, as we've seen just today, washington sometimes prefers to negotiate backroom deals made in secret far from the eyes of the american people rather than engaging in thorough, open and transparent debate right here on the senate floor. the day before the majority leader has set the vote to proceed, the bill's critical components are still not there.

right before we have set the vote for the motion to proceed to the bill, we still don't know what these critical components look like. we have no legislative text to evaluate the so-called compromise language on background checks, and we have no sense of what amendments, if any amendments at all, might be allowed to be offered. so requiring a 60-vote threshold helps us solve some of these problems and it helps us ensure that we have a meaningful debate rather than a series of backroom deals to push such controversial legislation through congress with solely a bare majority to back it up. finally, many of the provisions that we expect to see in the bill are both constitutionally problematic and would serve primarily to limit the freedoms of law-abiding american citizens. some of the proposals like, for example, universal background checks, would allow the federal government to surveil

law-abiding citizens who exercise their constitutional rights. one of the provisions we expect to see in the bill based on what we saw in the judiciary committee on which i sit would allow the attorney general of the united states to promulgate regulations that could lead to a national registry system for guns, something my constituents in utah are very concerned about, and understandably so. you see, the federal government has no business monitoring where or how often you go to church, what books and newspapers you read, who you vote for, your health conditions, what you eat for breakfast and the details of your private life, including your lawful exercise of rights protected by the second amendment and other provisions of the bill of rights. such limitations may, of course, at times make it harder for the government to do what it feels like it needs to do, but we have

to remember that the constitution was not written to maximize or protect the convenience of our government. the constitution was written to protect individual liberty, and thankfully so. we must not narrow the application of constitutional protections in haste, nor should we allow a bare majority to jeopardize basic rights of the american people, rights protected in the first ten amendments to the constitution. the senate and the american people are engaged in an important debate today. i look forward to this debate, and i hope that others will join me and my colleagues in demanding that our discussions take place in full view of the american people. american people.

>> she was there has been political at equal and partner. she never went to fire within the boundaries of what a proper break taurean or early victorian lady should be admitting teen century. they shared an office in a private department. she was active in discussion of

the many state dinners they had. she was not approved, but very much a one-man who knew what she wanted and sent her rolls out and everyone had to play according to those rules. she was respected tori. she was very, very popular. >> british prime minister david cameron joined him numbers of parliament to pay tribute to former prime minister, margaret thatcher. mrs. thatcher, commonly known as the iron lady database stroke on monday at the age of 87. speakers included deputy prime minister, nick clegg and deputy opposition leader, edward

miliband. >> order, order. tributes to the right honorable baroness, zero glm. i called the prime minister. mr. speaker, a day to the notion. in the long history of this parliament, margaret thatcher was the affairs and so far only woman prime minister. she went three elections in a row serving this country for longer continuous. the 90 prime minister for more than 150 years. she defined it overcame the great challenges of our age and it is right that parliament has been recalled to mark our respect. mr. speaker, it is also read the next one day, maybe that's just possible the jury could decide to factions are placed on a gun carriage and taken to singapore's cathedral member of

all three services wilander group. today, we in the house of commons paid tributes the dirt to an extraordinary women. what she achieved even before her three terms in office is remarkable. those of us who grew up in margaret thatcher was already in downing street can sometimes fail to appreciate that she broke through permit grocery shopping grant them to the highest office in the land. at a time when it was difficult for a woman to become a member of parliament, almost inconceivable one could be the conservative party and by her own reckoning, virtually impossible that a woman could become prime minister. she did all three. it is also great to remember she said much in her life on the direct personal threat from the

ira. she lost two of her closest friends and closest parliamentary colleagues to terrorism. of course she herself was only inches away to the attack in 1984 and yet it was a measure of her leadership she shook off the dust from the attack and just a few hours later, gates announced in a speech reminded us all what democracy must never give in to terror. margaret thatcher was a woman of great contrasts. she could be formidable an argument, yet wonderfully kind and private. on 10 downing street today there are people who worked at various prime minister and talk of her fondly. she got drenched in a downpour, margaret thatcher personally made sure she was like dr. and found out herself dry clothes. she had always preferred dry to

wet. [laughter] on one occasion, and written note said please can you re-sign this minute. she left off the hyphen, leaving a note they read, please can you re-sign this minute? [laughter] to which he politely replied, thank you, dear, but i'd rather not. margaret thatcher was kind to her staff and utterly devoted to her family. for more than 50 years, dennis is always better site, an invaluable competent friend. after he said this. i've been right to have the greatest moment the world has ever produced. all i could produce comes mollis at a beavis love and loyalty. we know just how important the support of her family in france were to margaret and i know today everyone in this house who wish to send our most heartfelt as to her children, carol and

mark, her grandchildren and many, many loyal friend. she was always incredibly kind to me and it was a huge honor to welcome her to downing street shortly after he became prime minister, some thing when i started working in 1988 never dreamed i would do. as the state attributes because, i'd like to begin members here in south today who profoundly disagreed with mrs. thatcher, but come here today want to pay respects. the mistake of those honorable members. your general spirit is great credit and speaks more eloquently than any one person can have the strength and spirit of british statesmanship in british democracy. margaret thatcher was a remarkable type of leader. she said very clearly, i'm not a consent this politician, but a

conviction politician. she could some of those convictions could only like profoundly with her up abraded values. strong defense, liberty and the rule of law. you shouldn't spend which you haven't earned. governments don't create wealth, business and see. the clarity was applied with great courage to the problems of the age. the scale of her achievements is only apparent when you write to britain in 1970s. successive governments have failed to deal with all this beginning to be called the british disease. upon interest revelation, high inflation, though it seems absurd today, the state has got so big that owner airports and airline, sun center houses, trucks i rose, the state even under removal company.

the air is thick with defeatism. there is a sense the role of government is simply to manage the client. margaret thatcher reject this defeatism. she had a clear view about what needed to change. inflation was to be controlled not by policies, but on a serious fiscal discipline. industries were to be set free. trade unions handed back to their members. people should be able to buy homes. success in these endeavors was never assured. her political story was one of a perpetual background in the country, in this place and sometimes even under a cabinet, too. her career could have taken an entirely different part. in the late 1930s before she entered politics, then darker robbers and the personnel department rejected her application and afterwards with this. this woman has had strong,

obstinate and dangerously self opinionated. mr. speaker, even her closest friends would agree she could be all of those things. the point is this, she used to that conviction and resolve in the service of our country and where all the better for that. mr. speaker, margaret thatcher was a great parliamentarian. she loved and respected this place and was for many years the finest debater. i was a junior party researcher in the 1980s and the prime minister's question is seared into my memory. twice a week it was as if the arms of a giant octopus check every building further analysis of every problem, every answer to every question. respect for parliament was instilled into others. early in her first government

was seen running through the lobby. his hair disheveled and carried a heavy box and full papers on his arm. another member cried out, rome wasn't built in a day to which the minister replied coming at us, but margaret thatcher was in the form and not my job. [laughter] as tony blair said this week, margaret thatcher was one of a few leaders to change that on the political landscape in their own country, but the rest of the world, too. she was no starry eyed internationalist, but her approach is rooted in some simple and clear up the bulls. strength abroad because the strength at home. the tears, not appeasement. the importance of sovereignty, which is why she felt so passionately for interest in europe and always believed britain should keep its own currency. above all she believed that the courier of her being that

britain stood for something in the world, democracy, rule of law, right overnight. she loathed communism and religion invincible power of the human spirit to resist and ultimately defeat tyranny. she never forgot warsaw, prague, budapest were great european cities, free nations temporarily trapped behind the iron curtain. today in different corners of the world unless the people who know they owe their freedom and part to margaret thatcher in kuwait across eastern and central europe and of course and the falcon islands. a reprint as people gather in london to lay margaret thatcher to last, the sun will be raising and because of her courage and because of the skill and bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces, will rise again for freedom. mr. speaker, much has been said

about the battles that margaret thatcher five. she certainly did not shy from the site and that led to arguments, to conflicts, even division. what is remarkable looking back now is how many of those arguments are no longer arguments at all. no one wants to return to strikes without a balance. no one believes large industrial come needs should be on either state. the nuclear deterrent, nato. the special relationship or by the respected as cornerstones of security and defense policies. we argue sometimes passionately in this house of tax anonymous is our current return to tax rates of 90%. somebody principles lady thatcher 54 are now part of the accepted political landscape over country. as winston churchill once put it, some politicians make the

weather in margaret thatcher was undoubtedly one of them. mr. speaker, in the house of commons are rightly porous statues. my church gave us the beginnings of the welfare state. winston churchill who gave us the korean war, thurmond he gave us nhs and margaret thatcher who rescued our country from postwar decline. they say, three-hour,, demand when in 1979 came the hour and came the lady. she made the political weather. she made history and let this be her epitaph as she made our country great again. i commend this motion to the house. [shouting] >> order. the question is this house has considered the matter a tribute to right honorable baroness thatcher stephen algae. mr. edward miliband.

>> mr. speaker, to join the prime minister commemorated to extort or that the contribution of margaret thatcher and not to him in any deepest condolences to her children, carol and mark, the whole family and many, many close friends. today's opportunity to reflect on margaret thatcher's achievement, politics and political latency. as the payments issues that, the journey to downing street is an unlikely one. i was particularly remarkable she was the daughter, not the son and at each stage of her life, she broke the mold. when there is not a single woman in the university who held a full professorship, a woman can mescaline must be zero esteemed scientists had to be men. a woman candidate for parliament in 1950 against the opposition of the local party at the age of

24. a woman mp in 1959 were just 4% of mps and the whole of this house were women. the only women in the cabinet when she was appointed in 1880 and of course the first woman prime minister. mr. speaker, it is no wonder as early as 1965 in the women's guild conference in politics if you want anything said, ask a man. if you want anything done, ask a woman. i'm sure some people in this house -- i was going to say, i'm sure some people in this house and no doubt many more in the country will agree with the sentiment. having broken so many conventions as is the wisdom she's someone who had so many areas of life is going to take on the established orthodoxy is. margaret thatcher's ability to

overcome every obstacle in her path is one measure of her personal strength and that takes me to her so politics. you can disagree, but it's important to understand the political leadership was. what was unusual that she thought to be rigid into his eyes, but also believed ideology mattered. not for her, the contempt of ideas for new thinking and political life. the motion of her would've claimed to be wanted to be seen as an intellectual, she believed it showed that ideas matter in politics. in 1945, mr. speaker, before the end of the work, she bought a copy of road to serfdom. in a story she suggested distributed in the 1945 general election campaign. she said it left a permanent mark on my political character

and nobody can grasp margaret thatcher's achievement without also appreciating the ideas and the way in which they departed from the prevailing consensus at the time. in typical style, she said this in 1995. it doesn't give you any direction. it's like mixing the constituent ingredients together and not coming out with a cake. democracy is about people being given the choice. they enabled her to influence politics for generations to come. the deputy prime minister and i all came of age in the 1980s pavement you define politics by being for or against what she was doing. it's fair to say we took different powers.

the people of britain still argue about her legacy. she was right to understand the aspiration of people across the country. she was right to recognize our economy needed to change. she said in 1982 how absurd it will seem in a few years time and pick picked returnable pulsatile. she was right. she was right to defend and briefly reach out to new leadership in the soviet union. she was the first political leader in any major country to warn of the dangers of climate change. long before anyone thought of hugging a husky. [laughter] but he would be dishonest not in keeping with the principle that margaret thatcher stood not to be open with how, but the strong opinions in deep divisions of what she did. in areas like one ever-present,

community got angry and abandoned. and people felt stigmatized by section 28 kenosha-based conservative party has rightly repudiated. there was no accident that when he became leader of the conservative party, the right honorable member read a pamphlet that there is such a thing as society. and mrs. prime minister read the second 2006 newsletter of the opposition, she read the wrong judgment about nelson mandela and sanctions. mr. speaker, debates and what she represented will continue for many years to come. someone with deep convictions willing to act on them. as she put it, politics is more when you have convictions in a matter of multiple maneuverings to get you through the problems of the day. nothing became her so much as a

manner of her final years. the loss of her beloved has incumbent dennis and her struggle with illness. she bore both with the utmost dignity and courage. the same courage she showed decades earlier after the atrocity of the brighton bombing. iler vendors see the frail health and determined to pay respect to richards to the country. margaret thatcher was a unique and powering figure. i agree that she did, but i respect what her death means to the many, many people who would hire her and i honor her personal achievements. on previous occasions when we've come to this house remember the extraordinary prime minister is his favorite nation.

today we also remember a prime minister to find her age. >> order. mr. john redwood. >> mr. speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and on behalf of the house i pay tribute to the prime minister and leader of the opposition. they captured the essence of margaret thatcher, the women and the essence of margaret thatcher the one in and states of men and we are getting off to such a superstar. i wish to be brief, but i like to put on record she was the best boss i ever worked for. as a chief policy advisor in the middle years and then was able to advise is a member of parliament and a junior minister. the private side of margaret thatcher was so different from the public side, yet many people

beyond this house remember the woman who was so fierce and conviction. what we saw, who worked with her closely with someone who worked incredibly long hours with energy intelligence because she was so keen to get it right and she took a very wide range of advice when you are working with margaret thatcher and you have an idea and you're putting it to her, not only did she produce the evidence and the facts many times, the cheap new person after person coming to downing street is going to be given as a kind of test and they didn't know they were part of a running focus, that's your idea was they are in front of the gas and they were asked to shoot it down because she was so desperately concerned never to use the power without proper thought and the sauce is so keen to make sure before she did anything, she knew what i go wrong with it. she tested it distraction and

there's a lot to recommend to those making many decisions that they spend time, take travel, go to a wide range and make sure something works well before it is put out there. margaret thatcher came in the middle of her. in office to be the champ being a white ownership of my participation in the sunni was her at her best when she could reach out beyond the confines of the conservative party she led so well in those days and beyond the confines of her 30, 40% voted support, much wider in the country and the prime minister can become a great national leader when their ideas resonate more widely and when they become popular by those who would normally oppose. is that spirit of margaret thatcher which is saw her way as

a schoolgirl and an officer graduates of parliament and parliamentarian to the cabinet that made her feel the opportunity was there for people, they recognize she was difficult for women and people of certain backgrounds and she was always telling us it did matter where you came from, who your mother and father with. what mattered was what you could contribute. that is the message that goes way beyond the confines for the use of her supremacy in parliament and is something we should all remember. when we try to produce policies reflect this are generally, we came up with the idea that owning a home has been the privilege of the rich are part of society and why couldn't it be something everyone could aspire to and not dwell accounts to her idea of momentum. they still remain debates and an

awful lot a lot of saber counselors decided it was a good post date, join the circuit and reached us so much more widely. we try to extend in the ownership of big and small businesses to tape a program of wider ownership and the employee elements in the public elements of the great privatizations because she was determined to get britain to break out as a debilitating cycle of decline that we witnessed on the labour and conservative governments in the postwar years. just one fact the house might like to bear in mind for those who are worried by the depressing number of jobs in the 1980s is the newly nationalized industry in the early 1950s had 700,000 employees in that time margaret thatcher came to office in 1979, there were only 285,000 of those jobs left.

there's been a massive hemorrhage throughout the postwar period and similar figures in the other commanding heights. it is that which drove from to say they must be a better answer. there must be a a modernizing of industries and bringing their industries. one is the modernization of the car industry from which gathered momentum under the labour government. i think is the prime minister mentioned, was to extend the argument to a much wider audience around the world. it is the export of the idea in parliament and franchise meant, participation, allowing competition new ideas and allowing the public to be part of the process, which took off around the world in the spirit of revolution in eastern europe, which led and if we wanted finger picture as a result of

the legacy it is the tumbling of the berlin wall. the path of enterprise and freedom it up by all the democratic is the right approach and it communism doesn't work. >> a great baby, great stateswoman come huge personal achievement and its best and achievement, which broke free from conservative woman and shows the world that there is a better way from a democratic way, a freedom loving way. [shouting] >> mr. nick clegg. >> on behalf of the liberal democrats are by to pay tribute to lady thatcher. we extend condolences. like all of us who are not members who disagrees i thought long and hard about what to say.

i'm also mentioning the name now admitting strong reaction. i'd like to think she'd be pleased if she still provoked trepidation in a certainty amongst leaders of other parties, eyeballing across the house. visit us can shun the attendance and still respect margaret thatcher of what is so remarkable about her. i take to make three short observations. first, but the later criticized her, it's impossible to deny the imprint on the nation and the wider world. she was among those rare theaters and became a towering historical figure, not as written but in the prime political life. whatever else he said created a

paradigm, setting up the economic political and social debate for decades to come. she drew the lines on a political map that we here are some navigating today. second, she was wanted for his caricatured figures in modern british politics, yet easily one of the most complex. on the one hand, remembered as an ideologue responsible for her own as an yet in reality, much of politics was subtle, part attic, sometimes driven by events. margaret thatcher was a staunch pitcher it and much more comfortable reaching out across the atlantic and across the channel coming as she participated one of the most profound periods of european integration. she herself an architect of the single market. while she was a conservative, but in a party which traditionally thanks to conserve things, she held a deep aversion to the status quo.

she was rested about the future, determined to use it for server farm, never a short-term disruption in dispute of long-term change. in many ways a traditionalist, she was one of the most i contest at politicians. margaret thatcher was far from a cardboard cutout sometimes imagine it for me the best tribute is not to confine her through simplified here when orville and, but remember with anyone, unresolved complexity and paradox she possessed. finally mr. speaker, there was an extraordinary, unsettling directness about her political presence. our member rate the margaret thatcher was no such thing as society. it was not the kind of thing a white paid idealistic social anthropology undergraduate wants to hear, but what strikes me is why disagreed with the individualism which those words

implied, and never for a second thought she was being cynical or striking a pose or taken a position for short-term effects. you always knew with margaret thatcher that she believed what she said. it is interesting, mr. speaker, to reflect on the 24 hour news posters in focus groups. she wistfully and entirely driven by the conviction that what she said. somehow her direct us may feel as if she's arguing with you as it was a clash of convictions against yours and that's a result he somehow felt as if he knew her, even if you did not. whether she inspired or confronted, she did it all with utter clarity. her memory will no doubt continue to divide opinion and stir deep emotion that as we as a nation say farewell, one thing

is for sure. the memory will continue strong and clear for years to come in keeping with the unusual unique character of margaret thatcher herself. >> nigel dodds. >> thank you, mr. speaker. may start with my right honorable friend's with aaron is thatcher to her children and grandchildren. i want to thank you for recalling parliament as the right thing to do in this chamber, which he dominated for so long that we the representatives of the people of the united kingdom should meet here to pay tribute and also reflect on her lawn. an office. baroness thatcher was many things, mr. speaker. she was a pioneer come a first female leader in the united kingdom and the first female prime minister. she did great at glass ceiling, the shouts of her through

standing in the way of anyone from becoming the leader of a major political party. she was a woman of personal and local courage come a politician of ability and a woman who transformed not only the united kingdom come but also played an enormous role in changing fundamentally the world order. of course there are many who disagreed, even with their own party and those of us who are unionist disagreed with eradication, particularly in relation to the anglo-irish agreement. but whatever our views, people today by and large must accept, acknowledged that hire her as a politician, a safe person of conviction. for the case of focus groups have a soft imogene would have suited her. how many times they decide within her lifetime and then at

least you knew where maggie said and people admire that in their politicians. that is certainly something people want to see. part of her attraction what she was seen as taking on vested interest, the political establishment. she was prepared to shake things up. like all great human being can operate politicians, she was a woman of contradiction. off they didn't match it to actions. she did become persuaded on some issues. she took for instance, for his stance against european federalism, for her stand in defense of our currency and yet she did sign and implement the single european act, which many see as the forerunner of the agreement and again was full of

contradictions. the dep and indeed the entire unionist community in northern ireland oppose the anglo-irish agreement and indeed, many honorable and right honorable members than others opposed it as well. once she had said his british essentially, what she said rightly that it was out, out to a united ireland, federal ireland or joint authority and yet the leader in 1985, she signed the agreement without consultation for the unionist community and without their consent. the reason so many unionists felt so strongly spoke so strongly at that time and the are still strong feelings about that area as they remember the strong stand during the hunger strikes and they sit up in the

defense of democracy and terrorism, when she had suffered losses at prime minister of her close colleagues. when she a year before had survived an assassination attack and yet was persuaded to sandy and the irish agreement. i am glad that early in my she came to recognize that was a mistake. just the sort i'll come her former close adviser said the other night in newsnight, instead of mary queen of scots at the words were inscribed in her heart so she believed the irish anglo agreement would be ascribed in the heart of margaret thatcher became disillusioned with that agreement. people say it was a time but for the future that we now have. i say it is sent back because he can't face the future on

exclusion. and i say that if they unionist in northern ireland with all of her history. we must go forward with the inclusion of communities. today there's very little of the anglo-irish agreement last. today we have a settlement, which has consulted and has a certain agreement of both communities in northern ireland. i'm not glad that is not what we have as opposed to the previous approach. mr. speaker, i want to close by saying that we had our disagreements with margaret thatcher, bishop is fundamentally, instinctively and truly a great pastry at, a great unionist and that is why we are right to pay tribute to her today, recognizing her false, recognizing the divisions they are. of course there are divisions. there were divisions long before margaret thatcher and there will be divisions long after another

year as well. i hear today gerry adams and others talk about the legacy of margaret thatcher as if she and the british government created the violence in northern ireland. the fact is of course the hunger strikers were in jail and convicted of terrorist acts long before she came to office. [shouting] and those on our streets in belfast and elsewhere in the tub and costco, bristol, wherever, and gauging in the ghoulish celebrations i've seen max, which i didn't appall the entire nation. they should think again of her words because she once said that she took great solace in those who hated her so much because she knew then that she was doing what was right and that they hated her for that.

[shouting] mr. speaker, we must remember margaret thatcher for the great thing she's done for our country, not remembering her with rose tinted spectacles comes especially those of us in all stir. but it is right that we must mark her life as one of enormous contribution, and everlasting memorial to democracy and freedom in this country and across the world. >> malcolm rifkind >> i was privileged to serve for the full 11 years of her office and inner cabinet for half that time. it was never dole. [laughter] each day we saw political leadership and statesmanship of the highest order and each day we saw a prime minister with remarkable personal qualities. it is sometimes said she didn't have a sense of humor.

there is weight in many of her speeches, but i recall one occasion she was asked, mrs. thatcher coming to believe in consensus? to her surprise i heard her say we do believe in consensus. they should be a consensus behind my convictions. [laughter] at that time this is an extraordinary example of whites, but as the years have gone by, i realized -- [laughter] she was actually being deadly serious. [laughter] is also said that she could be very intolerant of those who didn't agree with her. i was also a parody of the truth. she was intolerant of people who are morally, who argue things couldn't be done because they'd be unpopular or was too difficult. for someone who is able to argue from a point of fact and respected that could change our

mind. i was moved to the foreign office at the time of the falcon said she recalled our ambassador at the security council to ask him. he never met before. as a rather grand diplomat when he started trying to report to her, she not uncharacteristically kept interrupting and he was the use this. after the fourth interruption, he stopped and said prime minister come if you didn't interrupt me so often come you may find that you didn't need to. she not only kept quiet, but six months later appointed our foreign minister adviser. she was a clear picture of the conservative party. dozens of her conservative normally means someone has rather wedded to tradition, cautious of change, unwilling to act too precipitously at issue is the most radical prime minister of the last two generations.

there is nevertheless a consistency between these two statements because when she recognized was britain had gone the wrong way, taken the wrong path for 20 or 30 years and that a change in that product may radical. many honorable members will note that for you here he says you want things to stay the same, things will have to change. and that very much was her belief. i am conscious of the fact, having spent a lot of my time in the foreign office but diplomats in the foreign office were not my favorite department. when i was defense secretary said ms. slater she said to me, you know, minister of defense, your problem is de facto allies. ..

some weeks later we had a visit from the president. i was offered to sit in on the meeting. now, we got a representative. we are refusing to sell arms to south africa and we have initiated an agreement. we have all the means to try to bring down the apartheid.

[inaudible] [laughter] it was part of the news. [laughter] and so we may have had misgivings about this office. and we owe a great debt of gratitude to the foreign office. the relationship with mr. gorbachev was a direct result of the diplomats at a very early stage. but this youngest new member, mikell joerg mikhail gorbachev the way in which he persuaded ronald reagan

is a man with whom he could do business. reagan would not have accepted that device from most people. and therefore the result was not only a remarkable set of initiatives, but the end of the cold war and the liberations and eastern europe without a shot being fired. i would like to make another point that it is the spirit one of the big issues that we had today is in the relationship with the united states. british prime ministers have to agree with the president. the more i can tell you is that it is no doubt the answer. on several occasions she has deep disagreements with ronald reagan, one of her closest friends. on the question of the soviet oil pipeline, british companies have helped contract to build it. and the americans had sanctions

against british companies. i was sent off to washington as a junior minister with the american deputy secretary of state. we reached a compromise, it would be known as the dim agreement. [laughter] and she openly disagreed with the regular summit want when she felt like we were surrendering to many nuclear weapons without getting enough in return. most important of all, she bitterly resented this. you recall this was invaded by the united states who have forgotten that her majesty would not even inform the british government of what they were about to do. she went on the bbc world service attacking him.

some days later, reagan was sitting in the oval office and the british prime minister was on the phone when he received a call. and she started berating him in a rather stark way. some of us have been on the cbn and we know how it feels like. and then reagan put his hand over his head and said gee, isn't she marvelous. [laughter] sometimes even your closest allies are entitled to that. it was someone who did not worry

she took it on as a badge of pride. she famously said that she had the eyes of regula and their lives of marilyn monroe. next week, we will have the funeral. i was at churchill's funeral as well. i was just an 18-year-old student who had spent the night on the pavement and watched the arrival of the cathedral. we will either other the on other great prime ministers, including margaret thatcher in a similar way. that is something the country can be proud of and the whole

world has a debt to her. we fully recognize that as well. [cheers] >> and give her the opportunity to be able to make the brief contribution. i would like to acknowledge that margaret thatcher was one of the most per bit fermentable politicians of recent times. from her family and friends or colleagues to her supporters. i extend my condolences of the national party. she had social aid and economic divisive policies which were particularly opposed in scotland and wales. we will never forget and we will never forget the tax being imposed before the rest of this. no country should have such policies imposed on them when they were rejected at the ballot box and the welsh national assembly follows this

experience. margaret thatcher will be remembered for a long time in scotland and wales and she helped remind us that we have a national consensus. we value society and solidarity and proud to communicate. for that we can be grateful. [cheers] >> there is one small compensation and that is she leaves many memories. so vigorous and decisive with her personality. she is on for unforgettable to everyone in the country. she is a humble speech writer and a most personal memories

conflict with the caricature that is being built up not by her friends but by her opponents. she was very kind. i remember an occasion when she returned from three days abroad. and i needed some help with my speech, i called her speechwriting machine as she dropped a strip of paper and i was wearing a black tie and it was solicitude for me to carry this off. she could be remarkably diplomatic. not only in how she handled those who worked for her.

we were summoned before her to argue uppers active cases out. i thought my arguments were the better of the two, but she was in favor of the secretary of state. and she said peter, i was impressed by your argument. but it would have been quite wrong for me to overrule this in favor of the junior minister over a matter that was not of paramount importance. she was right. she was very cautious. in contrast to the idea that she recklessly took on, she deferred the expense of a humiliating settlement with a confrontation to be able to build up and

confirm a confrontation in the nation would not be held at ransom. progressively, step-by-step, she would politely reject proposals for further reform. however much they appealed to her. once convinced that policy was right in principle, workable in practice, and elaborated in detail, for which she had a focus on the central issues, she would push it through with unswerving tenacity. we are holding up to some of the criticisms that have been made

over. i once responded to this that she was deliberately divisive. harsh. and divisive. she made a reality and reality was harsh. he triggered reality onto her at the human costs of facing up to reality would be much less previous governments of both parties had not prevented this and failed to deal with these realities early on. explaining the predecessors. and those who hated reality

transpose their hate her. those who hated being proved wrong, transfer their hate her. fortunately she was big enough and strong enough to act as a lightning rod to their opinions. the second actor to that was used of her by the bbc and the headline is. a divisive leader. there have to be two sides. including those who were opposing the changes. converting her opponents to her way of seeing things.

not a single measure was repealed or regressed. she has extraordinary achievement of uniting all parties behind a new paradigm and before she came along, consumption was all problems would best be solved by top-down direction and control. she introduced the idea that quality and efficiency are most likely to follow if people can choose between alternatives. i'm happy to say that this is a model that has been adopted and was implemented by tony blair, even in the public services. so far from being divisive, she is someone who leaves a legacy.

and it is a day like this in which we must remember that. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to testify in front of family and friends and colleagues elsewhere. to them, i offer my profound condolences. i rise in the proud tradition in political tradition of my own predecessors. this is a solemn day. it is with solemnity and sincerity that i speak on behalf of democratic irish nationals. i acknowledge the right range of contribution across this house. it is clear from some of these testimonies of those who personally knew her cherish her. i am not here to deny personal

truths. but i must speak with sincerity and honestly about the political contributions on the legacy that she left behind. she herself always respected. not to register our differences and dereliction of responsibility. but many have said they owe contributions in many ways and have left a legacy in britain. she was a wonderful politician. it cannot be denied that she helped but was ill advised of the very few political issue driven by injustice and it could be solved purely by military

matters alone. her policy in her approach partisan and polarized modern opinion. and demonstrated a lack of knowledge. her actions proved counterproductive to our cause time and time again. political propaganda victories. the license that it had from government was a major problem. these have been indicated. all of these things served to nationalist opinion. but left many questions. and many remain to this day. a large part of that unfinished

legacy is how we must deal with the past and how to help the many victims. all differences -- we have not only a difference in us, we have been challenged. we disagreed with the attitude and oppose virtualization of nelson mandela. i note them in the last few days that we have displayed the great humanity and their response. and that is something i would join in solidarity with. the signing of this agreement as

margaret thatcher as prime minister, what a pivotal and defining moment in our shared history. a pivotal moment in changing the direction of our relationships. it was the first significant agreement between ireland and britain since 1921. and it includes the foundation for the peace process over the last 27 years. it changed forever the relationships between our two countries and leaves the foundation for what we have experienced since. today is the 15th anniversary of the belfast agreement, the good friday agreement. that effort involved layers of understanding. leading on from that agreement has involved building more layers of understanding.

but we must agree that the bedrock and foundation for all that has been achieved was the agreement of 1985. the family of that agreement shows that it is at times include advisers. she also listened to her friends. promotable friends like ronald reagan and the u.s. just as she may not have recognized the polarizing effect of her policy towards hunger strikes, she may not have appreciated the potential of long-term softening effects and the irish agreement. the agreement change the tradition and the political

competition to make it even more competitive twist to those who are engaged in violence and i believe it could stop the violence. it was turned into a new history and the new history of northern ireland. with it, a new history on these islands as a whole. agreements are being reaped today with the engagement that started and continues to flow. the full effect of that moment in history on the path of irish nationalism, recognizing that today, we recognize at the time of the passing. i join others across this house.

in extending my sympathies to the children and family and friends of margaret thatcher. not just in britain but across the world. margaret thatcher enjoyed many political challenges. she did not shirk from life. in the democratic nonviolent tradition, i will not be dishonorable. but neither can i be dishonest. thank you, mr. speaker. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. speaker. monday was the day that we had all been dreading in recent months in recent years. much has been written about the state of her health in recent years. you'll remember only 18 months

ago posting her when she came to support me and in what turned out to be one of her last visit to this palace. may i say, mr. speaker, she was grateful for your support and kindness to her. especially on occasion. she came back for so many health scares. but we thought she would go on forever. in the words of those well-known poem. as i have watched the coverage of this remarkable lady on the television, i have also felt a deep sense of personal loss. some of us have lost a dear friend and someone who is not only a friend, but a mentor and someone that i loved and cared for very deeply.

i first met her back in 1992. over the years, she has been enormously supportive in my efforts to get elected. i remember in 2001 when she came to support me and we took her to a health club covered live on sky news. the chief executive would come to welcome her. she announced to him that these places are a complete waste of time. in 2002, i had the unique privilege of welcoming margaret thatcher in the same month and i want the people that when ted was coming, for goodness sakes, don't put out the fires. well, they did. one of them said to me, well,

what do those go to? and i said, well, they agreed to cover it. and he came to said, i suppose what was a compliment. i suppose it was something of a coup. [laughter] she came down in 2005 and was not to be. [laughter] for me and another candidate, and would become once the guest speaker and margaret was the guest of honor. but it is, i think, a sunday

evening that i spent with her in recent years. i was on my way to see her at chester square on my way to the gym. [laughter] [laughter] we have great conversations and the sundays. they are very much dependent on how she was on a particular day. we were on good form and we had a look at what was in the papers. and i remember a poll that showed her 9% behind and she asked when the next election was. and i said a little over two years ago and she said, that is not run up behind at this stage. [laughter]

i did have a piece of information from the prime minister. i'm sure that it reduced my prospects of promotion. there was one occasion when i took a taxi from here on a particular what an awful evening. and he said, which ended the square d ron and i said the one with margaret thatcher and they said, what are you doing there? would be doing a? and i said that i was going to pay the fare and he refused to take the fair. i apologize in advance for repeating the story. he said, you go in there and you tell her that we are good citizens. [laughter]

mr. speaker, mr. speaker, i am part of this message to margaret looked at me and said, well, he is quite right. [laughter] by then i was on the receiving end and i should have paid him and i didn't and it was monstrance. mr. speaker, one of the things we used to talk about was her time in office and her remarkable achievements that she had. i remember on one occasion, quite recently, towards the end of last year, saying that we must have been making mistakes. and i said could you think of any specific examples. she replied they usually happen when i don't have my own way. mr. speaker, much has been said in the media about the controversial nature of her as a

politician. it would be to betray who she was. she was a principled and confrontational character. she pursued her policies with vigor and persistence. she said to me that politics are ferocity in action. she believed in the battle of ideas. something we would welcome in politics today. if i may say so, to the deputy prime minister, she wasn't a tory at all. in fact, she probably said she was an economic liberal. and the proudest traditions she welcome back.

but i think the protests are in some ways the greatest conflict that could be paid to her. even if the left argues against it. you take great pride in these protests. look at how graces she was and is always what she said when her political poise part of the scene. it is not just in what she achieved and the fact that the labour party has a reverse much. her true legacy lies here on these benches and those who are coming up behind us. after the 2010 general election, i have the honor of organizing your reception to introduce new colleagues. and there is a great compliment because of her inspiration and

because of what she believed him dead. asking to come and see her and telling her that he was informed by watching what she had done while she was at university. she was a divisive or sent to some degree, controversial, certainly. but she was an inspiration to many people way beyond these shores. and i would like to say what she said in the closing pages of her memoir. her last authentic but that she published where she reflected in she wrote movingly about attending church of the holy cross. every nook and cranny was packed. and the singing of unfamiliar hymns was uplifting. it forced me to try to imagine

what the congregation was asking. including a fellowship of believers across nations and denominations. i had the sense that i had suddenly become the center of attention. people smiled at me. someone translated his words as the priest began. he recalled that during the dark days of communism, they had been aware of voices from the outside world offering hope with a different and better life. the voices were many and all the welcome to people starve so long of truth as well as freedom. polls have come to identify with one voice in particular. my own. even when that voice had been

laid to the loud speaker of the propaganda, they had heard through the distortion the message of truth and hope. where a new democratic order had replaced it. but they had not fully felt the change will believed in the reality until today. when they finally saw me in their own church. the service continued that the prisoners had not been exhausted. i was invited to stand in front of the altar. when i did so, there were mothers and fathers that applauded. is your speaker, the final paragraph of the memoirs reflects that no human mind nor any conceivable thing can calculate the sum total of my

current politics in terms of happiness and achievement in virtue nor of opposites. therefore how this affected the lives of others is something we will only know on judgment day. it is an awesome and unsettling thought. but it comforts me that when i stand up and hear the verdict, i will at least serve the people of the church of the holy cross as character witnesses. >> mr. speaker. i join in paying tribute to my old adversary, margaret thatcher. she was synonymous with supporters. many of our policies were part

of this. but margaret was much more competent than that. both as a politician and a person. and in international significance, it was emphasized quite recently. almost 24 years after she stopped being prime minister, she won the best actress award oscar for pretraining her almost as was used to betray herself. i had been in the cabinet for 10 years when she was prime minister. i saw the reaction and after she left office or was ousted from office by some of her colleagues, i had contacted her from time to time. of course, i had many of the

drastic changes that you made in society. and i was a spokesman which she provoked and prepared for and won. though she was greatly helped by the stupid approach by those who destroyed the once almost revered national union of mineworkers who chose to hold a strike ballot. a victory for her, just as we had referenced. just as was contributed to her greatest election victory in 1983. her impact on the availability exists to this day.

not to mention the blunders for those types of things. but she was a tory prime minister. unlike winston churchill, she broke the consensus and that was her achievement. in some areas she could be more than civilized and she was a secretary and i recall an occasion when one of the spokesman violated the kind of deal in which the house depends. it was margaret who sought me out to apologize saying that she knew nothing about it and she

would've stopped it had she known. after she became prime minister, she balked at privatization is by john major. although she won her second and third election with enormous majorities, she was always accessible. she announced that any member of parliament with employment problems could come and see her and i availed myself this offer. i explained the problem. but how do you say that, she asked? i suggested it could be taken over by the national enterprise

board. kenneth baker, the individual responsible for this area, she turned to him and asked, what did i do with it? [laughter] is now a blood transfusion center. but she was brave. harris tried to kill her and all of her cabinet by seeking to do so. she came here, she was hesitant and bright and perky in the house of commons. she was right on a considerable number of foreign policy issues. against those on both sides of the house and she was utterly

determined that the people who still want to be british today should not be the victims of a fascist dictator. how some members should actually want this, i could not understand him and i still do not understand it today. when saddam hussein seized kuwait, she was actually touched by the preparations to oust him by force. some of these were very

spineless. and i'm here to try to obtain a consensus. the end the debate, the house was told it was based not on supporting the united kingdom government, but on implementing united nations security council resolutions. she smiled a wry smile. she was much more farsighted than most united kingdom prime ministers about israel and the middle east. she gave him a direct instruction to coach the leaders

of the communities and urged them to include the very sizable numbers in israel to labor in the forthcoming election. she genuinely found ways of getting the work done. there had been a musical called maggie may. it was very much her watchword. i suffer from time to time after she left office. on one occasion, i attended a social event. and she puzzled over to me. i recently had published in a newspaper and asked her about protecting children from

photography and videos and she told me how much he admired the effort and said that i carried with me everywhere in my handbag. to be part of the content, what greater appropriations could we possibly hope for. >> margaret thatcher served 1979 until 1990. making her the longest-serving british prime minister of the 20th century. her funeral is scheduled for next wednesday, april 17, at st. paul's cathedral in london. >> on c-span2, a look at immigration in the u.s. capital. and the senate homeland security

committee examines efforts to protect borders. later, senator manchin discusses the agreement on the firearms legislation. on capitol hill on thursday, the discussion of the 2014 budget proposal. and the new $3.8 billion plan. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3. >> thursday morning in the senate, we will continue the debate on the firearms legislation and vote on measures to proceed with the bill. and bipartisan proposal from senator manchin to expand background checks. live coverage at 9:30 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> saturday on american history

tv, a chance to weigh in on emancipation and civil rights and the role of corporations in american life. panels from the annual meeting in san francisco. it starts at 9:30 a.m. with the black freedom movement followed by your questions live at 11:00 o'clock. at noon, a debate on the role of corporations in american life. that is also followed by your questions at 1:30 p.m. saturday starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3 in american history tv. >> a path to citizenship with the illegal immigrants now living in the country. a march took place on the national mall in washington dc. senator bob menendez of new

jersey and congressmen luis gutierrez of illinois. this is 20 minutes. >> the time is now. the time is now. [cheers] [cheers] >> how is everyone doing? people in the back, how are you doing? people on the phone, how are you doing? the people over there, how are you doing? the time is now. my name is give at clark and i come from oakland, new york. more importantly, i am the daughter of two immigrants who came to the united states of america from jamaica west indies. the congressional black caucus stands with each and every one

who is here today and across this nation who want to have comprehensive immigration reform now. we know that for too long our families have suffered. our community has suffered. because of the inaction of those who know what is right. they have refused to stand up. each and every one of you has stood up. you have made it known loud and clear that we will not stay in the shadows of this nation because we are this nation. each and everyone of you. you are this nation. if they can't hear you now, they will hear it again next year with the elections that come

around. they need to know that it is time to start a 21st century immigration system that respects all human rights. that respects the rights of the workers and the mothers and the fathers and the children who are here and who need their relief now. so it is my honor and privilege to ask that my colleagues join me as we bring to you allies. there is a black face to immigration. that face is joining with the latino face. the asian face. the basis of immigrants come from around the world. we want you to know that we

stand together in this movement for freedom. standing with us as a gentleman who is known across this nation. he is known for being on the side of all issues. he is none other than the 17th president and ceo of the naacp. [applause] [cheers] [cheers] good afternoon. good afternoon, brothers and sisters. i am president of the naacp. i'm joined today by members of

the naacp who marched last year to fight hb 56. [applause] those who organized last year to help pass the dream act. [applause] i am joined by other brothers and sisters who were born in the caribbean and africa and all of us together saying that the time is now for comprehensive immigration reform. [applause] limassol reflect for a moment on how we got to the place that we are at today. and where we need to go from

here. join me if you will, think last time you were in a public restroom. and you heard somebody say the pledge and it got to the last part about what the usa stands for. one nation, under god, indivisible. with liberty and justice for all. [applause] we say that because in this country it is our conviction that there will be no second class families. [applause]

even after our nation became one, we were not clear that we would even be one nation. were that we would insist on having liberty and justice for all her brothers and sisters. decades and centuries, sometimes we stray off course. get the history of the nation shows us that we will always be towards justice. what needs to be one nation. you see small groups of people in history, those who are here today that avoids step forward at key moments in history to say, let us have the courage and national convictions unless chart our course for one america truly has no second class families.

[applause] think about it, brothers and sisters. not far from here in virginia, it was actually irish indentured servants and african slaves who stood up shoulder to shoulder against the king of england and said that they would forever be indentured service and slaves. from that moment forward, it had always been about our children. because in this country, there will be no second class families. there was confusion in the civil war had just ended our nation and there was this question about what happens to people in

this country and what happens to the white families who are in treason against their own country. and there was the 14th amendment to the constitution that said we don't care what your parents do. we don't care what size your parents have and we don't care where your parents came from. if you were born here, you will be a citizen. in this country, there will be no second class families. [applause] fifty years ago on the small, doctor martin luther king stepped forward to call for the end of segregation and he witnessed the end of the whites only immigration policy. we did so because we said in this country that there will be no second class families.

we are gathered here today in the interest of our all of our children and we are gathered to say with every child who grows up here, to make sure that they are able to stay here and work your and raise their family families here and be citizens of the country. because there will be no second class families. let us ensure that the 11 million people who have come here and work hard here and pay taxes here -- they fought for a better future of the families here. whose loved ones are someone else, wanting to come here. let us stand up and say to make

them citizens. because in this country there will be a second class families. we say it is time to pass comprehensive immigration reform. it is time for commonsense solutions that uphold our nation's values and solve the problems going forward. we are one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. in america there will be no second class families. [applause] thank you, god bless. [cheers] [cheers]

thank you. jericho. [applause] >> thank you so much. jericho. [applause] the paragraph transborder transborder

>> are we going to pass immigration reform? [cheers] i am chair of the congressional asian american caucus and i am here joined by the chair of our immigration task force, we are here to say that asia pacific islanders want comprehensive immigration reform. and we want it now. [applause] you know, asians are the largest group of immigrants coming to the country every year. one in 10 are undocumented asian pacific americans. millions of our stock waiting

just how long to be reunited with their families for 24 years. that is why we must bring a pathway to citizenship. that is why we must keep families together. that is why these members of congress in these asian pacific island organizations join you in working on comprehensive immigration reform. they have traveled from all over the country to join this rally and we will not stop. we will not stop until we pass a comprehensive immigration reform.

[cheers] [applause] now we have someone who has worked tirelessly to make this happen. the executive director of the national korean service education service. [applause] [cheers] [speaking in native tongue] >> good afternoon. ..